Alex Jones may be right. Check that. Alex Jones is probably right.
For months, those of us that know Jones’ style and substance have watched the Jones alternative, Glenn Beck.
Beck’s goal, it becomes clear is to bring only the version of truth that fits a certain agenda.
Beck’s appeal is in his “mom’s apple pie”, nice, reformed drinker success story.
It would seem Beck is quite pleased with his audience’s perception of him – from down and out in the bottom of a bottle to making it large working for a network with deepening pockets. The “pockets” are filling, largely because Beck has the number two cable news show – he pointed that out yesterday. People are listening.
What is most disturbing is the cleanup job. To help the flag waving, war supporting American public, Beck represents a parallel universe to Jones’, but lacks the bigger meat and potatoes of the fuller, rounder explanation of where the world is heading. Beck claims he was not aware of any of “this” two years ago, but that is blatently and easily proven less than true – since at least 2008 reporting on CNN, Beck came out with the terminology One World Government and New World Order. ” The world you and I grew up in is gone, and it may be gone forever”. That was Beck in his “drinking days” of 2008, that by Beck’s suggestion can be shrugged off by no no better explanation than “drinking”, “a lot”. This is the part where the tip of the tongue goes out and in, with rapid motion, to further the goal to sell the moment.
Growing public awareness may help explain why Beck, Limbaugh and other neo conservative supporters have been “forced to” cover the current drive to world government awareness. . It could then be argued, Beck represents the other argument, parallel to Jones, but making it more palattable to the citizens as a whole. You can hear the relief “Thank God our child’s going to war in Afghanistan is not a lie, and not for reasons other than finding and fighting terrorism.” Can you imagine how hard to swallow it would be to think otherwise?
Jones brings up a strong point that these guys are forced to keep up to stay relevant. They may be keeping up because as more and more focus heads to the real source of the problems – the Bilderberg Group – the more deflection sales jobs need to come in. And what better way than to use a mom’s apple pie approach to admit many things, deflecting away from Bilderberg, and to support the troops, and those that have died fighting for the cause?
In short, the Jones’ take is hard to accept from the point of view of what it ultimately represents. Yet, it is almost impossible to find an angle that supports any chance of inconsistency or lies. And, I am getting really good at finding inconsistencies. Again, with Jones I am having quite the impossible time. If you have listened for a while, you will likely agree – there is no reason to have to make excuses. How many times he may have dipped into the bottles of Jack (Daniels) or Jim (Beam) is not an issue.
Beck, on the other hand has repeatedly explained the reason he is so different from only a few years ago, because, his admission is “he used to drink a lot”. Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t a bash of the courage it took to leave that life, but using it as an excuse for altered character is hard to swallow.
I suppose the argument is that character can be shaped by alcohol. I suppose this is where the expression “I must have been drunk at the time” came from. But, the new rub from Beck is that it affected his morals, and he was reporting things that he didn’t agree with, because he was a down and out drunk. Is that it?
So, as beaten to death many times here, the clip of him exclaiming that the sky is falling, and the new world order is coming, with one world government on CNN in 2008, he would tell us now that he should not have said that because “he drank a lot”? I’m having a hard time seeing the connection.
Yesterday’s show had Beck clicking the magnetic pictures of his band of Commies on the blackboard. He hit us with the notion Obama was pushing the New World Order over the last couple of days, and yesterday, the attack was on communism. The tie we are supposed to make is that it is a world-wide drive to communism? I hope he has about two decades to bring this argument to it’s logical conclusion.
Is Beck suggesting there is a worldwide conspiracy to bring the world to a New World Communism? Where are the connections to other communist interests throughout the world to explain how the world is working toward unified communism? There is a far greater compilation of evidence and witnesses to support it is the Bilderberg Group connected to the bigger picture.
The motive for Beck to draw the conclusion to communism versus the Bilderberg Group is obvious – his boss is Rupert Murdoch – a Bilderberger.
Bilderbergers, Waterbergers, the build a bear people at the mall. there is no sense talking about any of these people, Beck would explain. When he says we shouldn’t, the big red bell sound, ding, ding, ding, should be going off – red alert – that is exactly what we should focus on. The motive to protect is clear, and fairly obvious.
What the Bilderbergers do that is worth protecting is the bigger question. Why it is held in secret meetings is the bigger question. Protecting and deflecting attention away from them, and earning the big bucks to do it is an admission that they have something to hide, as the people catch on.
Bilderberg is using Beck no doubt to counter the argument that Jones’ makes. That’s why he has hired a team to mirror the issues Jones brings to the table. It also would explain why he can’t admit that he struts behind Jones to take what is brought to the table, and spin it to his version of reality.
It would also explain why FOX would use Jones any chance they get to make him out to be the proverbial kook.
Admitting there is doubt about who is responsible for 9/11 would blow FOX news and their argument sky high. It would open up the doubt of the war effort, and the reason for the occupation occuring in the middle east.
And, only by spinning the army as farmers tolerant of the culture could Rivera give credence to the “toleration” of those folks hooked on opium in Afghanistan. Never heard that one before? If you looked at the occupation in Afghanistan as a means to fund the CIA directed drug trade, reported by many not seeing it through Fox-colored glasses, you would not be surprised.
Are we to believe the heroine and opium isn’t finding its way into the North American drug trade?
It’s interesting that if Rivera and FOX have had Jones on would Jones not become one of their “regular contributors”, as so many other experts are. When Rivera said to Jones, “we’ll stay in touch”., the question is when? When you need to discredit the 9/11 truth movement again? How about Jones as guest on the sheltered Glenn Beck show? That would be entertainment worth a ratings boost.
There is far deeper evils than the New World Order created communism.
The argument and belief are that Bilderberg and other groups are working the world over to use political influence and groups to play against each other. Communism is a means to control. Bilderberg will use political dissidence between political parties to fight each other, while the true enemies can escape.
Beck still paints those that would say 9/11 was an inside job as nut jobs. No debate even though he would in another breath say is important. Debate, just not on 9/11. It is almost wrong to say 9/11 was an inside job, because it was a job of a military force not in this country, being allowed to operate by a few in government in position to allow it. That would make it terror from within, but not within (inside).
The enemies foreign and domestic that Beck would tell us today need to be dealt with must include the very real possibility that there are enemies domestic operating within the U.S. government.
By not wanting to put these pieces together will be the ultimate sticking point for Beck.
He does not want to address:
- the possibilities of enemies domestic responsible for 9/11
- the right-stripping effected by the Patriot Act
- the Bilderberg Group
Why is everything else on the table? If he were truly willing to explore, he would prove the issues above are invalid.
Simply saying 9/11 truthers are nut jobs, or saying “we don’t need to go to the Bilderbergers” is not consistent with the probing he does on every issue surrounding them.
The logical reason is that there is an ulterior motive to bypass the Bilderberg Group, 9/11, and the Patriot Act.
If the goal is to blame Obama and other left-leaning radicals (communists) then he would explain all right-stripping laws as being instigated by controlling communists. He would therefore be able to bypass the events of 9/11 leading to the Patriot Act that can paint anyone as a terrorist, even if they are simply war-protesters.
It would seem to be a mission of “spin” more so than a mission of real truth. It may be the truth, but presented in a way to protect certain parties that do not want to be brought to the forefront.
That would be consistent with history. The false Republican-Democrat battle takes eyes away from Bilderberg. Talking about all bad things as a result of the commies is another angle now being pushed.
Bilderberg is the hand that feeds Beck. No matter what truth he brings, he forgets to bring lots of other truth worth looking at.
Beck follows and studies Jones. That is obvious. What this means is there is reason to deflect Jones’ message. That gives Jones’ message more meaning and more credibility. If it isn’t worth tainting, it isn’t a threat. Well, the message is a threat. The message is consistent, and unfortunately is hard to impossible to refute.
If Beck would be able to discredit Jones, I am sure he would have already tried by having him on as a guest. That, like a confrontation with Jessie Ventura is not going to happen. Jones and Ventura are real. Beck blows with the wind, and serves “today’s” purpose. When the purpose changes, so does the message. No amount of excuses can explain the inconsistency of argument. The fact that he was a drinker proves using that as an excuse is weak. What will the next excuse be when the message changes yet again?
It may go something like this, ” I used to ______ a lot”.
I’m sure the blank will be filled in by another excuse to explain past behavior, when really it is just a cover up to try to explain how the new “mission” is different from the old one.